Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Israel-hating Leftists Upset about Freeman

There's much whining and sniveling on the left about poor Chas Freeman being forced to withdraw, supposedly because of the influence of the evil Jewish lobby. The want to ignore everything else about him: his statements on China, his nonsensical "analysis" of 9/11, his close ties to Saudi Arabia, his financial dealings with both the Saudis and China, and any other criticism that's been raised about him, and claim that he's been forced out solely because he's been -- as they see it -- ever so slightly critical of Israel.

You have to wonder, why do left-wingers even like Chas Freeman? I can understand how some on the paleocon right would embrace him. But what does the left have in common with a realist school diplomat? Have they all changed their minds about Henry Kissinger? Are they going to support propping up pro-American dictators? Since when don't they care about human rights? Why are noted loudmouth leftists like Glenn Greenwald, who are so obsessively concerned with the rights of terrorists, not appalled by someone who would explain away the Tiananmen Square massacre as a necessary exercise of state power? Since when are close ties with the odious Saudi regime a good thing? I seem to remember quite a bit of left-wing criticism of the Bush family onnections to Saudi Arabia -- and even some conspiracy theories. So what makes Chas Freeman so attractive to some on the left? What could it be? Does hatred of Israel, and the chance to get an anti-Israel diplomat into a high position really override everything else? I guess it does.

2 comments:

> why do left-wingers even like Chas Freeman? I can understand how some on the paleocon right would embrace him. But what does the left have in common with a realist school diplomat?

I'm closer to being a Ron Paul paleo, but I can explain what's happening with the left. The era of neoconservative foreign policy -- particularly the Iraq war -- has sucked away formerly liberal hawks like those at TNR. Simultaneously, due to the failures of Iraq, the appetite for realism has increased across the political spectrum, but especially among anti-war lefties.

> Why are noted loudmouth leftists like Glenn Greenwald, who are so obsessively concerned with the rights of terrorists, not appalled by someone who would explain away the Tiananmen Square massacre as a necessary exercise of state power?

Freeman's point, as I understood it, was that it was necessary for the stability of the Chinese state as-it-is, not the Chinese state as we wish-it-were. IOW an illiberal, undemocratic communist regime like China cannot tolerate Tiananmenesque demonstrations. This is not the same as saying such states are preferable, only that in China's case it's what we have to work with and is preferable to an anarchic or dysfunctional one.

> Since when are close ties with the odious Saudi regime a good thing?

Good? How about necessary? (think energy and the presidents holding hands with their leaders)

> So what makes Chas Freeman so attractive to some on the left? What could it be? Does hatred of Israel, and the chance to get an anti-Israel diplomat into a high position really override everything else? I guess it does.

If you equate a rejection of neoconservative hawkery with being anti-Israel then I can see how you might come to this conclusion. Essentially you're playing a McCarthyesque anti-Semite card. Have fun with that.

" the appetite for realism has increased across the political spectrum, but especially among anti-war lefties."

That hasn't been too evident on many other issues.

"Freeman's point, as I understood it, was that it was necessary for the stability of the Chinese state as-it-is"

His point was pretty clear, and I'm not even attacking it -- since I have a large realist streak myself -- but it doesn't exactly fit in with left-wing views -- particuarly with those who constantly talk about humanitarian concerns, rights and so forth.

"Good? How about necessary?"

Same as previous point.

"If you equate a rejection of neoconservative hawkery with being anti-Israel then I can see how you might come to this conclusion."

I come to the conclusion that he's anti-Israel basically because pretty much everything he's written indicates he's anti-Israel. Plus he's a big friend of the Saudi's, who aren't exactly pro-Israel. Generally I think people are anti-Israel when they provide evidence that they are. They tend not to hide those views.

"Essentially you're playing a McCarthyesque anti-Semite card. Have fun with that."

Nonsense. Freeman's own words after withdrawing indicate that he's probably an anti-Semite. People who aren't anti-Semites generally don't make up conspiracy theories regarding the "Israel Lobby."